By Ron Unz
05/25/2010
Peter Brimelow writes: Senator John McCain is in a desperate primary battle against patriotic immigration reformer J.D. Hayworth, as evidenced by his much-derided vertigo-inducing 180-degree turn on illegal immigration and the need for a border fence. Ron Unz, publisher of The American Conservative magazine, has chosen this interesting moment to relaunch the very odd story of America’s Missing In Action, prisoners of war possibly left behind in Vietnam, and what appears to McCain’s role in suppressing efforts to find them. He has reposted Sydney H. Schanberg’s vast Nation expose of last fall, along with critical assessments by Peter Richardson, Andrew J. Bacevich, John LeBoutillier, Alexander Cockburn and Gareth Porter (a skeptic). With permission, we post Ron’s introduction to the package below, to which we have added our trademark hyperlinks.I have long been interested in the MIA story. In the run-up to the 2008 election, I described
“Surprisingly widespread resigned acceptance among Beltway Republicans that McCain’s much-touted POW record will boomerang, just like John Kerry’s Swift Boat service, because of allegations, widespread on the internet, that he eventually collaborated with his captors. I don’t know what the truth is. But I do know that, nearly twenty years ago, William Stevenson, author of the huge spy best-seller A Man Called Intrepid, and his co-author and wife Monika Jensen, were privately expressing puzzlement at finding in their researchfor their Kiss the Boys Goodbye: The Shocking Story of Abandoned U.S. Prisoners of War in Vietnam, that McCain had emerged as an opponent of efforts to solve the MIA conundrum.”
Of course, this “swiftboating” didn’t happen — but then, the McCain campaign never opened up on Obama either. Subsequently, I noted McCain’s oddly jarring reference in his acceptance speech to breaking under torture, noted Schanberg’s article when it appeared and linked to the video of McCain browbeating an MIA activist at a 1992 Senate hearing that it discusses.
Regardless of whether this story becomes an issue in the Arizona GOP primary, Unz is certainly right to focus on what he says is the “strong pattern of the press avoiding stories of overwhelming importance”, citing other examples. Naturally, I believe the Main Stream Media’s systematic non-reporting of America’s post-1965 immigration disaster, above all its economic aspects, is a case in point. (Ron, for record, does not.)
Symbolically, both the MIA case and the immigration case are brought together in John LeBoutillier’s comments. He describes how, in 1985, Al Hunt, then Washington bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal, took over the editing of an MIA story and emasculated it. Twenty five years later, the same Al Hunt is pontificating (Republican Strategy on Illegal Immigrants Set for Failure, New York Times, May 23, 2010) that the GOP must not respond to public outrage on illegal immigration — despite e.g. the issue's miraculous rescue of Arizona governor Jan Brewer’s career — because of the much-vaunted “Hispanic vote”, a myth repeatedly exploded by Steve Sailer.
Hunt’s careerist conformity to the Washington Establishment line is perfect. The MIAs, meantime, are dead. And America may be dying.
Was Rambo Right? Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government — and our media
[Just published, without VDARE.com’s added links, in the July 1, 2010 Issue of The American Conservative]
In the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign, I clicked an ambiguous link on an obscure website and stumbled into a parallel universe.
During the previous two years of that long election cycle, the media narrative surrounding Sen. John McCain had been one of unblemished heroism and selfless devotion to his fellow servicemen. Thousands of stories on television and in print had told of his brutal torture at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors, his steely refusal to crack, and his later political career aimed at serving the needs of fellow Vietnam veterans. This storyline had first reached the national stage during his 2000 campaign, then returned with even greater force as he successfully sought the 2008 Republican nomination. Seemingly accepted by all, this history became a centerpiece of his campaign. McCain’s supporters touted his heroism as proof that he possessed the character to be entrusted with America’s highest office, while his detractors merely sought to change the subject.
Once I clicked that link, I encountered a very different John McCain.
I read copious, detailed evidence that hundreds of American POWs had been condemned to death at enemy hands by top American leaders, apparently because their safe return home would have constituted a major political embarrassment. I found documentation that the cover-up of this betrayal had gone on for decades, eventually drawing in a certain Arizona senator. According to this remarkable reconstruction of events, the average teenage moviegoer of the 1980s watching mindless action films such as “Rambo,” “Missing in Action,” and “Uncommon Valor“ was seeing reality portrayed on screen, while the policy expert reading sober articles in the pages of The New Republic and The Atlantic was absorbing lies and propaganda. Since I had been believing those very articles, this was a stunning revelation.
But was this alternate description of reality correct? Could this one article be true and all the countless contrary pieces I had read in America’s most prestigious publications be false, merely the presentation of official propaganda endlessly repeated? I cannot say. I am not an expert on the history of the Vietnam War and its aftermath.
Yet consider the source. The author of that remarkable 8,000-word exposé “McCain and the POW Cover-Up,” published on The Nation Institute’s website — was Sydney Schanberg, one of America’s foremost Vietnam War journalists. His reporting won him a Pulitzer Prize, and his subsequent book on Cambodia was made into “The Killing Fields,” an Oscar-winning movie. Schanberg later served as one of the highest-ranking editors at the New York Times, with a third of the reporters at our national newspaper of record working under him. A case can be made that no living American journalist can write with greater credibility on Vietnam War matters. And he had labored for years researching and exhaustively documenting the story of American POWs abandoned in Indochina — a story that if true might easily represent the single greatest act of national dishonor ever committed by our political leaders.
He presented a mass of evidence with names, dates, and documentary detail. Many of the individuals mentioned are still alive and could be interviewed or called to testify. Sealed government records could be ordered unsealed. If America wishes to determine the truth, it can do so.
Yet what I found most remarkable about Schanberg’s essay were not its explosive historical claims but the absolute silence with which they were received in the mainstream media. In 2008, John McCain’s heroic war record and personal patriotism were central to his quest for supreme power — a goal he came very close to achieving. But when one of America’s most eminent journalists published an exhaustive report that the candidate had instead served as one of the leading figures in a monumental act of national treachery, our media took no notice. McCain’s public critics and the operatives of his Democratic opponent might eagerly seize upon every rumor that the senator had had a private lunch with a disreputable corporate lobbyist, but they ignored documented claims that he had covered up the killing of hundreds of American POWs. These allegations were serious enough and sufficiently documented to warrant national attention — yet they received none.
All of this might seem unimaginable except that it falls into a strong pattern of the press avoiding stories of overwhelming importance. Consider how many of the national disasters of the past few years have been caused by the unwillingness of our major media to question official truths or the widespread beliefs of our elites. The Iraq “cakewalk“ to eliminate Saddam’s WMDs, the nationwide housing bubble, and the Madoff swindle might have been prevented or would never have reached such massive proportions if reporters and editors had been willing to investigate and present claims contrary to the soothing blandishments of the powerful. Instead, it has become the norm for press outlets simply to repeat, with a few word substitutions, stories indistinguishable from those previously published by dozens of other press outlets, without ever examining any contrary evidence that might raise doubts about this perceived reality. Truth has come to mean the lies that everyone believes.
A couple of years ago, in one of my last exchanges with my late friend Lt. Gen. Bill Odom, who ran the National Security Agency for President Ronald Reagan, we agreed a case could be made that today’s major American media had become just as dishonest and unreliable as the old Soviet propaganda outlets of the late 1970s. At the time, we were discussing the coverage of our road to the Iraq War, but subsequent events have demonstrated that this national illness is far more advanced than either of us had suspected. Whether or not Schanberg is proven correct, the shameful cowardice of our mainstream media is already proven by the wall of silence surrounding his work.
In an attempt to breach that wall, we present Schanberg’s account of how his remarkable story was buried, as well as his explosive original article. TAC has also convened a symposium of critics drawn from military, political, and journalism backgrounds to explain how this report could have failed to reach a mass audience. A small political magazine does not have the resources to investigate the detailed evidence of Schanberg’s case, but we can hold a mirror up to America’s major media and force them to see what stories they now regard as completely non-newsworthy.
And if Schanberg’s claims are indeed correct, they reveal the lethal consequences of America’s overweening national pride. After all, his history is a simple one. Following the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the Vietnamese refused to return their French POWs unless Paris agreed to pay financial compensation for the war. The French leaders paid the money and got their men back. Similarly, the Vietnamese refused to return their American POWs unless the U.S. government agreed to pay reparations. Nixon signed a document promising to do exactly that, but the Vietnamese, being cautious, kept many of the POWs back until the money was delivered. Then Congress refused to authorize the funds because “America doesn’t lose wars.” Nixon and later U.S. leaders never acknowledged the fate of these captives lest the American people become outraged. And as the years and decades went by, and various schemes to ransom or rescue the POWs were considered and rejected, their continued existence became a major liability to numerous powerful political figures, whose reputations would have been destroyed if any of the prisoners ever returned and told his story to the American people. So none of them ever came home.
Ron Unz is publisher of The American Conservative.
Read Sydney Schanberg’s exposé “McCain and the POW Cover-Up” here.
And read Schanberg’s account of how this story was buried by mainstream media here.
The American Conservative welcomes letters to the editor. Email them.
This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.