Matching Grant Challenge
alexPureWhen I met Alexander Cockburn, one of his first questions to me was: “Is your hate pure?” It was the question he asked most of the young writers he mentored. These were Cockburn’s rules for how to write political polemics: write about what you care about, write with passion, go for the throat of your enemies and never back down. His admonitions remain the guiding stylesheet for our writers at CounterPunch. Please help keep the spirit of this kind of fierce journalism alive by taking advantage of  our matching grant challenge which will DOUBLE every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, CounterPunch will get a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate. –JSC (This photo of Alexander Cockburn and Jasper, on the couch that launched 1000 columns, was taken in Petrolia by Tao Ruspoli)
 Day 19

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Shocked Over Kerrey?

It’s How We Fought the War

by Alexander Cockburn And Jeffrey St. Clair

Here’s one of the many unsettling things about Bob Kerrey, and it doesn’t even address the issue of what exactly he did in the Vietnamese village of Thanh Phong. Supposedly riddled with indecision whether to accept the Medal of Honor for a military action subsequent to the one now under dispute, he finally did so on May 14, 1970, just 10 days after after the Ohio National Guard killed four anti-war student protesters at Kent State.

In other words, at a moment of maximal national revulsion against the Vietnam War, former Sen. Kerrey went along with the Pentagon’s urgent desire for heroes and presented his chest to President Richard M. Nixon, who pinned the medal to it. So much for “ambiguity,” one of the words used now to salvage his reputation. And now, and only now, is he considering whether to give back the Bronze Star awarded him for the 1969 mission in which (if you believe, as we do, his fellow SEAL Gerhard Klann) he assisted in the throat-slitting of an elderly Vietnamese peasant and ordered the killing of 13 women and babies, or (if you believe him) less wittingly supervised the slaughter of an old man and 13 or more women and children.

It’s pretty clear that Kerrey’s raid was part of the CIA’s Phoenix program (as was My Lai, where “Task Force Barker” killed 504 men, women and children the preceding year). The intent of Phoenix was terror, precisely the killing of not only suspected Viet Cong, but also their families. The late William Colby, the CIA man who ran the program, told Congress that between 1967-1971, 20,587 Vietnamese “activists” were killed under the Phoenix program. The South Vietnamese declared that 41,000 had been killed. Other estimates go as high as 70,000.

Barton Osborn, an intelligence officer in the Phoenix program, spelled out in a congressional hearing the prevailing bureaucratic attitude of the agents toward their campaign of terror: “Quite often it was a matter of expediency just to eliminate a person in the field rather than deal with the paperwork.”

And who was classified as a “VC sympathizer” and, therefore, fair game to be slaughtered by units like Kerrey’s? The CIA’s Robert Ramsdell, one of the two men who developed the My Lai operation, said, “Anyone in that area was considered a VC sympathizer because they couldn’t survive in that area unless they were sympathizers.” Thanh Phong was in “that area,” which lends credence to Klann’s account of what Kerrey’s raiders did.

The death squads run by the CIA men supervising Phoenix were a particular favorite of the man who pinned the medal on Kerrey: Nixon. After My Lai there was a move to reduce funding for these killing programs. According to journalist Seymour Hersh, Nixon passionately objected: “No. We’ve got to have more of this. Assassinations. Killings.” The funding was swiftly restored.

When he was at Newsweek in 1998, reporter Gregory Vistica had Kerrey cold, but the newsmagazine’s editors decided that since Kerrey was no longer a presidential candidate it wasn’t worth exposing him. It was apparently OK for a U.S. senator to be an alleged war criminal. Then the New York Times finally decided to run Vistica’s story because Kerrey had left the Senate. Given the lack of disquiet among faculty and students, it’s also apparently OK for an alleged war criminal like Kerrey to be head of the New School University in New York, which in earlier days hosted refugees from Nazi Germany.

So will the Kerrey brouhaha nudge the nation or Congress into confronting the past and what the Vietnam War really involved? Of course not. Right before the last election, CounterPunch ran a story by Doug Valentine, who wrote “The Phoenix Program,” one of the best histories of what really happened in Vietnam. Valentine’s CounterPunch story concerned Robert Simmons, in the midst of an ultimately successful campaign to represent Connecticut in Congress. The specific charge against Simmons, originally leveled in the Connecticut paper New London Day in 1994 was that he routinely violated the Geneva Convention while interrogating civilian prisoners during his 20 months of service with the CIA in Vietnam. Simmons claimed he’d always steered clear of the dirty stuff. Same way Kerrey claims that when his unit cut the throats of the old folk in a Thanh Phong peasant hut, he was outside.

When Simmons was battling to become a congressman (after a long career in state government in Connecticut), no national paper cared a whit about the fact that a possible torturer and war criminal was on the hustings. Small wonder Congress is being protective of Kerrey, admonishing the Pentagon not to probe what happened at Thanh Phong. How many executive agents of the Phoenix program are strolling up and down the aisles of government? CP